- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:46:45 -0500
- To: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
- Cc: uri@w3c.org
>On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 13:42, Joshua Allen wrote: >> > - could be mentioned by name (because it has one) >> > the latter view, roughly the "to be is to be >> > the value of a uri" view of 2396 resources, is one >> >> Wow, I am surprised that anyone would want to stipulate that something >> must already have a URI assigned to qualify as a "resource". What >> possible use could there be in trying to argue about *that*? > >The use is that it constrains the discussion and implementations to >something manageable. What I'm after is one term that applies to things >that a URI is bound to (what I call a Resource with the capital R being >intentional) and another, wholly seperate term for things that might >exist but which don't have a URI bound to them. That way systems like >LDAP v3 referrals can safely say they only deal with 'things' that have >URIs already bound to them. > >It is very intentional on my part to design things such that, if it >doesn't have a URI, then it simply does not exist. That decision would completely break large parts of current Web technology. It is completely unacceptable, quite apart from being so obviously false that it would be simply ridiculous to assert it. Moreover it is completely unnecessary: if LDAP v3 wishes to restrict itself to entities which have a URI assigned to them, then go ahead: you can use that very phrase to identify your intended universe of discourse, or invent some special term. But don't try to impose that restriction on the rest of the world. Pat Hayes -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 22:46:48 UTC